3rd of May 2015 was World Press Freedom Day and a world map was posted on Twitter among other places showing what the state of countries' press freedom is around the world. You can see the Twitter-post showing the map here .
On the map, one can take note of the press freedoms in Russia & Iran and compare with western countries in general. It's fairly obvious that western countries and the formerly mentioned countries Russia & Iran differ a lot when it comes to freedom of the press.
The reason I bring this up is because of how many truthers and other conspiracy theorists that complain about western media or often what they simply call "MainStream Media"(MSM). Often they also refer to Russia Today(RT), and in some cases PressTV from Iran(like Veterans Today for example).
Also, it's ironic how Julian Assange has been protected by countries like Russia, again considering the press freedom in Russia vs that of the West.
It's sad how Russia is not fully open and democratic. It has had such a long time to be able to transform and could become such a good country if it did, and maybe even join the EU. Russia is part of Europe and it's unfortunate with the latest tensions between Russia & Europe. Hopefully it can calm down in the near future.
Obviously, the worst situation for the press is in Syria and similar countries. It's disgusting what is going on there and how the press is attacked. To me it just further shows what an unjust conflict that is. It was a war at some point, but since a long time, it just seems like a stand-off and terror campaign against civilians. A Hell with no end in sight.
söndag 3 maj 2015
Why the Ground Zero fires lasted so long
An old newspaper article from November 2001 dealt with the efforts to fight the fire at Ground Zero. It brings up the firefighting efforts, the toxic chemicals and more.
2 paragraphs were extra interesting to me as it pertains to something that truthers have frequently brought up: why the fires lasted so long. Truthers often say the reason is thermite.
Fire experts in the article think different as I will quote now below:
It can be useful to be aware of this as opposed to the explanation that truthers often give. Actually I am not ruling out thermite, but I have not seen evidence that I think conclusive proves thermite was found, nor used. Thus, I am not totally convinced it was thermite that Jones & Harrit showed. Again, I am not ruling it out, I am just skeptical that it was actually thermite.
Further, I find the explanation showed here from the article (page 2 of that article is where the quote is in and I linked to page 2) in New York Times much more probable and logical. That fire experts say it also gives it more credibility in my view.
Credit to Ronald Wieck from Hardfire (and in my 9/11-group on FB: "9/11 Conspiracy Theories are an Inside Job!").
2 paragraphs were extra interesting to me as it pertains to something that truthers have frequently brought up: why the fires lasted so long. Truthers often say the reason is thermite.
Fire experts in the article think different as I will quote now below:
It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete, plastics from office furniture and equipment, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars and other sources are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said.
It can be useful to be aware of this as opposed to the explanation that truthers often give. Actually I am not ruling out thermite, but I have not seen evidence that I think conclusive proves thermite was found, nor used. Thus, I am not totally convinced it was thermite that Jones & Harrit showed. Again, I am not ruling it out, I am just skeptical that it was actually thermite.
Further, I find the explanation showed here from the article (page 2 of that article is where the quote is in and I linked to page 2) in New York Times much more probable and logical. That fire experts say it also gives it more credibility in my view.
Credit to Ronald Wieck from Hardfire (and in my 9/11-group on FB: "9/11 Conspiracy Theories are an Inside Job!").
tisdag 21 april 2015
Truthers' narrative questions by Sam
In a group I have about 9/11 on Facebook ("9/11 conspiracy theories are an inside job!") a member, Sam Beeson, made a comment where he wondered what truthers' narrative are regarding 9/11 if I allow myself to interpret his words. He asks why truthers don't have a single story. Further he brings up a number of questions he thinks one almost has to ask truthers just to see where they are coming from. I thought his comment with these questions were so good that I wanted to make a blog post about it. I will share his comment with the questions in full below.
Sam Beeson's comment(by "page" he means my group):
Fair questions?
What are truthers' view of a narrative regarding 9/11?
What kind of truther are you?
Sadly, there is a group that very often gets the blame in different variations that you could add to his point 6, but the point is still made, and he knows which I mean. I have a rule against bringing them up for that reason among others, otherwise I am sure he would have brought them up there too. and "other" covers that any way.
Here you got a view from a debunking perspective. and a little questionnaire to bring to a new truther when you meet him or her.
Sam Beeson's comment(by "page" he means my group):
The truth movement would be much more believable if they would at least agree on a single story. Instead, whenever a new truther comes to this page to argue, you have to ask them 20 questions to find out what kind of truther they are.1. Are you an inside job, LIHOPer, or combination?2. Were the planes that crashed into the WTC real with passengers? Real, without passengers? Military Drones? Holographic images? Combination?3. Was the plane that crashed into the Pentagon real with passengers? Real without passengers? Military drone? Missile? Other.4. Was Flight 93 real with passengers? Real without passengers? Drone? Missile? None of the above? Other?5. Thermite? Nukes? Space laser? Other?6. Who was behind it? Bush? Cheney? The gas companies? The CIA? A Middle Eastern country? Bankers? The Illuminati? Reptilian aliens? The New World Order? Combination? Other?In all seriousness, if truthers could answer these questions BEFORE they start debating, it might make things a little easier for us to argue with them.
Fair questions?
What are truthers' view of a narrative regarding 9/11?
What kind of truther are you?
Sadly, there is a group that very often gets the blame in different variations that you could add to his point 6, but the point is still made, and he knows which I mean. I have a rule against bringing them up for that reason among others, otherwise I am sure he would have brought them up there too. and "other" covers that any way.
Here you got a view from a debunking perspective. and a little questionnaire to bring to a new truther when you meet him or her.
lördag 18 april 2015
Why hasn't Gage made a model of WTC7?
Richard Gage is almost certainly the most well-known architect who voices doubts about what happened on 9/11 and whether the "official story" was correct or not.
Given that he's an architect, I assume he has access to pretty powerful computer programs used in constructing models of houses he's going to build, or at least did when he was active with that. I don't know if he still does that.
Yet, he has never, as far as I know, shown that he has ever made any attempt to make a model of WTC7 and see if he could theorize about what went wrong that way. Why?
Further, he of course is the founder and leader of the organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Among the engineers, I know several of them are computer engineers actually. Not saying all of them are. How come none of them have done any simulation, at least one shown publicly so that many of us have seen it? I mean, that I don't know if any of them have made a simulation, but that it never got spread around so it reached me, but I have never heard one of them attempted this.
[edit: since I wrote this, I have heard that AE911T have posted models or simulations on their website, but not seen any]
If one is interested in the truth, as Gage and his organization obviously say they are, why don't they make a good model and simulation and try to make it similar to what we know about WTC7(which is less than we may wish)? I would be interested in seeing that, and I think it would show intellectual honesty to do that.
Looking forward to it...
Given that he's an architect, I assume he has access to pretty powerful computer programs used in constructing models of houses he's going to build, or at least did when he was active with that. I don't know if he still does that.
Yet, he has never, as far as I know, shown that he has ever made any attempt to make a model of WTC7 and see if he could theorize about what went wrong that way. Why?
Further, he of course is the founder and leader of the organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Among the engineers, I know several of them are computer engineers actually. Not saying all of them are. How come none of them have done any simulation, at least one shown publicly so that many of us have seen it? I mean, that I don't know if any of them have made a simulation, but that it never got spread around so it reached me, but I have never heard one of them attempted this.
[edit: since I wrote this, I have heard that AE911T have posted models or simulations on their website, but not seen any]
If one is interested in the truth, as Gage and his organization obviously say they are, why don't they make a good model and simulation and try to make it similar to what we know about WTC7(which is less than we may wish)? I would be interested in seeing that, and I think it would show intellectual honesty to do that.
Looking forward to it...
onsdag 11 mars 2015
85 cameras
What do they have to hide?
Many of us have heard claims of there being 85 cameras, which footage was taken by FBI, without releasing this footage. Supposedly they are from when AA77 hits Pentagon. So, why doesn't FBI release these videos? What do they have to hide? These are questions which have been repeated over and over in the past years.
I must admit that I didn't know which cameras these were or what they showed. I thought it was fair to ask them to be shown, as long as it would not mean any risk to the companies or organizations etc. who had the cameras. and of course it's really only "suspicious" if the footage from these cameras actually show something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon and the FBI withheld such information.
Information exists on these 85 videos, and several have been released
To my surprise, I saw a member of a Facebook-group I have about 9/11 post an archived link about these 85 videos (all are not from separate cameras). On the link, all 85 videos are listed with short information about each one. A caveat is that I did not count all of them to see that they were 85, but it seemed to be about 85 to me. Another caveat is that I cannot verify this information with another source, but the link shows documents in writing as pictures as well as the text with the information about each video.
If we assume that the information about the videos are correct, and that it is all 85 being written about on that link, then there really isn't much of a mystery there, and there is nothing of importance that we have not seen before, save for possibly one video or possibly group of images described at the end. That was the only one I have not seen myself at least. I don't know more information about that only video (or images) that shows something that I have not seen before. Would be interesting to know more about it. You can see the archived link about the 85 videos here.
I think it was the same member of my group (became unclear who had posted the first link in my group) who also posted 16 videos in a playlist on his youtube-channel. I do not know if all 85 videos are shown there, but I did see that the first youtube-link in that playlist appeared to be one video with copies just like it's described in the list over the 85 videos that one video was. To clarify, about 5 of the 85 videos are copies of another. I have not confirmed if it's the same one at this point though. It was one I had not seen before, but there was nothing new about the attack on that one.
You can see the playlist here, starting with the first video in the list.
What do the videos contain?
Turns out that several of the videos are not from the Pentagon, but from WTC actually. As I wrote above, some are copies (most are not). Many of them are tourist videos. Some are very short. Most of them show Pentagon after the attack has occured.
All of them were released as part of a FOIA request.
Many of us have heard claims of there being 85 cameras, which footage was taken by FBI, without releasing this footage. Supposedly they are from when AA77 hits Pentagon. So, why doesn't FBI release these videos? What do they have to hide? These are questions which have been repeated over and over in the past years.
I must admit that I didn't know which cameras these were or what they showed. I thought it was fair to ask them to be shown, as long as it would not mean any risk to the companies or organizations etc. who had the cameras. and of course it's really only "suspicious" if the footage from these cameras actually show something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon and the FBI withheld such information.
Information exists on these 85 videos, and several have been released
To my surprise, I saw a member of a Facebook-group I have about 9/11 post an archived link about these 85 videos (all are not from separate cameras). On the link, all 85 videos are listed with short information about each one. A caveat is that I did not count all of them to see that they were 85, but it seemed to be about 85 to me. Another caveat is that I cannot verify this information with another source, but the link shows documents in writing as pictures as well as the text with the information about each video.
If we assume that the information about the videos are correct, and that it is all 85 being written about on that link, then there really isn't much of a mystery there, and there is nothing of importance that we have not seen before, save for possibly one video or possibly group of images described at the end. That was the only one I have not seen myself at least. I don't know more information about that only video (or images) that shows something that I have not seen before. Would be interesting to know more about it. You can see the archived link about the 85 videos here.
I think it was the same member of my group (became unclear who had posted the first link in my group) who also posted 16 videos in a playlist on his youtube-channel. I do not know if all 85 videos are shown there, but I did see that the first youtube-link in that playlist appeared to be one video with copies just like it's described in the list over the 85 videos that one video was. To clarify, about 5 of the 85 videos are copies of another. I have not confirmed if it's the same one at this point though. It was one I had not seen before, but there was nothing new about the attack on that one.
You can see the playlist here, starting with the first video in the list.
What do the videos contain?
Turns out that several of the videos are not from the Pentagon, but from WTC actually. As I wrote above, some are copies (most are not). Many of them are tourist videos. Some are very short. Most of them show Pentagon after the attack has occured.
All of them were released as part of a FOIA request.
söndag 8 mars 2015
Osama admits he did 9/11
but first things first... His supposed denial of responsibility...
Denial
Some have said that Osama denied responsibility in the beginning, but few say that the source of that is Karachi Daily Ummat in Pakistan, a country which has not always seemed to be very pro-USA or pro-West. That was proven when Osama found and killed there if not before. Karachi Daily Ummat is "believed to have close connections to Islamic groups in Afghanistan" according to an archived link from Ananova you can read here. Also, the newspaper says it "submitted questions for bin Laden to Taliban officials and received written replies". So, how much faith would you put in that? Me personally, I don't put any faith in this at all.
"Confession-video"
Then in December, 2001 already, Pentagon released a video showing Osama bin Laden talk about the 9/11-attacks and what his expectations were, that Atta was in charge etc. as you can see here. I linked the whole 59-minute video there. Over half (the latter part of the video) is of outdoor scenes seemingly unrelated. But in this full video, you can see the first parts when Osama and others enter the room and sit down before they begin talking about 9/11. It has subtitles.
So, this obviously contradicts his supposed "denial", where he also supposedly said it was against Islam to kill innocents, which is true, but he had advocated that it was "OK" to kill civlians (even going so far as calling it a "duty") in statements prior to 9/11, such as an edict from February 22, 1998, as you can read (among others) in this link from PBS's "Frontline". If you search for "civilians" there, it's the 4th hit of 5.
Claiming responsiblity
Finally, in 2004, Al Jazeera showed a video sent to them and published the transcript of said video, which you can see by clicking "Al Jazeera" above.
Fox News reported on this saying he for the first time claimed responsibility for the attacks, and also said why. This video was done prior to the election in 2004, and was likely an attempt to affect the outcome. Fox's link can be seen as sort of a "summary" of the speech and maybe "easier to read", which is why I link that too.
Likewise, CNN reported on this video, which was very special in that Osama admitted guilt concerning 9/11 for the first time. CNN's article can also be seen as sort of a "summary" of his speech for those that don't want to read the whole transcript.
Conclusion
This clearly shows that Osama at least claimed responsibility for 9/11. That, in itself is not proof positive of having commited 9/11, but a strong circumstantial piece of evidence I would say.
Obviously, one has to be aware that the video was to some large extent propaganda and Osama obviously had several purposes with releasing the video. All he said should be taken with a grain of salt, but it's still interesting to hear it from himself.
It's also good to have this information to show truthers so they see that Osama indeed admitted to 9/11, while his supposed "denial" is very much in question.
Denial
Some have said that Osama denied responsibility in the beginning, but few say that the source of that is Karachi Daily Ummat in Pakistan, a country which has not always seemed to be very pro-USA or pro-West. That was proven when Osama found and killed there if not before. Karachi Daily Ummat is "believed to have close connections to Islamic groups in Afghanistan" according to an archived link from Ananova you can read here. Also, the newspaper says it "submitted questions for bin Laden to Taliban officials and received written replies". So, how much faith would you put in that? Me personally, I don't put any faith in this at all.
"Confession-video"
Then in December, 2001 already, Pentagon released a video showing Osama bin Laden talk about the 9/11-attacks and what his expectations were, that Atta was in charge etc. as you can see here. I linked the whole 59-minute video there. Over half (the latter part of the video) is of outdoor scenes seemingly unrelated. But in this full video, you can see the first parts when Osama and others enter the room and sit down before they begin talking about 9/11. It has subtitles.
So, this obviously contradicts his supposed "denial", where he also supposedly said it was against Islam to kill innocents, which is true, but he had advocated that it was "OK" to kill civlians (even going so far as calling it a "duty") in statements prior to 9/11, such as an edict from February 22, 1998, as you can read (among others) in this link from PBS's "Frontline". If you search for "civilians" there, it's the 4th hit of 5.
Claiming responsiblity
Finally, in 2004, Al Jazeera showed a video sent to them and published the transcript of said video, which you can see by clicking "Al Jazeera" above.
Fox News reported on this saying he for the first time claimed responsibility for the attacks, and also said why. This video was done prior to the election in 2004, and was likely an attempt to affect the outcome. Fox's link can be seen as sort of a "summary" of the speech and maybe "easier to read", which is why I link that too.
Likewise, CNN reported on this video, which was very special in that Osama admitted guilt concerning 9/11 for the first time. CNN's article can also be seen as sort of a "summary" of his speech for those that don't want to read the whole transcript.
Conclusion
This clearly shows that Osama at least claimed responsibility for 9/11. That, in itself is not proof positive of having commited 9/11, but a strong circumstantial piece of evidence I would say.
Obviously, one has to be aware that the video was to some large extent propaganda and Osama obviously had several purposes with releasing the video. All he said should be taken with a grain of salt, but it's still interesting to hear it from himself.
It's also good to have this information to show truthers so they see that Osama indeed admitted to 9/11, while his supposed "denial" is very much in question.
lördag 7 mars 2015
Israel, mural truck and Odigo-warnings, the truth
Mural truck
So, we've heard many many times about a truck with supposedly painted on it a mural showing a plane diving into New York City and exploding. Supposedly 2 Israelis drove this van. Some think it even exploded, carrying explosives. Hence, Israel is seen as a huge suspect in 9/11 by some(often people with a certain "bent" so to speak).
So, what's up with all that?
Well, according to this document about "Lessons learned in the 9-11 terrorist attacks", MTI report 02-06, it says among other things that the truck was "rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English". It does not say that they were (or were not) Israeli.
They called out the bomb squad and detained the occupants while searching the truck.
However, they concluded something which truthers never mention, namely that "The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck."! You can search the document linked above for "delivery truck" and you can see the paragraph for yourself.
That's it. No explosion, no bombs, uncertain if they were Israelis or not. Nothing there.
Odigo-warnings
2 workers at Odigo, an Israeli messaging service from my understanding, received a warning of the 9/11-attacks 2 hours prior to the attacks. They were based in USA, in New York. Also had an office in Israel.
This warning was seen by some as Israel having pre-knowledge, warning their workers. So, Israel sort of got the blame for this too. or, it was just used to make it seem like several knew in advance, why didn't they stop it etc..
Rarely people say what I wrote above, that they got the warning 2 hours prior to the WTC attack. Most of the time, it's said that they got a warning and that it was an Israeli company.
Nor is it usually said that these workers got this message from people they didn't know. This messaging service let people who don't know you message you.
Nor do people usually bring up that the company cooperated with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI in trying to find out who the senders were as you can read here.
For all we know, it could have been AQ, or AQ-affiliated people who wanted to scare Israelis this way, but that's speculation on my behalf. Regardless, it does not say that Israelis or this company was involved.
Final words
Just wanted to spread this information about these 2 events. The information is out there, but may be sort of "buried" to some extent so I thought I'd try to help bring it to the fore so it could be straightened out a bit. Let's not blame Israelis, Israel, or Jews unfairly.
So, we've heard many many times about a truck with supposedly painted on it a mural showing a plane diving into New York City and exploding. Supposedly 2 Israelis drove this van. Some think it even exploded, carrying explosives. Hence, Israel is seen as a huge suspect in 9/11 by some(often people with a certain "bent" so to speak).
So, what's up with all that?
Well, according to this document about "Lessons learned in the 9-11 terrorist attacks", MTI report 02-06, it says among other things that the truck was "rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English". It does not say that they were (or were not) Israeli.
They called out the bomb squad and detained the occupants while searching the truck.
However, they concluded something which truthers never mention, namely that "The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck."! You can search the document linked above for "delivery truck" and you can see the paragraph for yourself.
That's it. No explosion, no bombs, uncertain if they were Israelis or not. Nothing there.
Odigo-warnings
2 workers at Odigo, an Israeli messaging service from my understanding, received a warning of the 9/11-attacks 2 hours prior to the attacks. They were based in USA, in New York. Also had an office in Israel.
This warning was seen by some as Israel having pre-knowledge, warning their workers. So, Israel sort of got the blame for this too. or, it was just used to make it seem like several knew in advance, why didn't they stop it etc..
Rarely people say what I wrote above, that they got the warning 2 hours prior to the WTC attack. Most of the time, it's said that they got a warning and that it was an Israeli company.
Nor is it usually said that these workers got this message from people they didn't know. This messaging service let people who don't know you message you.
Nor do people usually bring up that the company cooperated with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI in trying to find out who the senders were as you can read here.
For all we know, it could have been AQ, or AQ-affiliated people who wanted to scare Israelis this way, but that's speculation on my behalf. Regardless, it does not say that Israelis or this company was involved.
Final words
Just wanted to spread this information about these 2 events. The information is out there, but may be sort of "buried" to some extent so I thought I'd try to help bring it to the fore so it could be straightened out a bit. Let's not blame Israelis, Israel, or Jews unfairly.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)